Germans, because they had been defeated, had become
Englishmen ...'
I had met Lord Tyrrell (then Sir William Tyrrell) in London at
the home of Lady Colefax. He was an Irish Catholic and less impermeable
to French reactions than are many English Protestants. He had directed
the Foreign Office for a long time as Permanent Secretary and he
had appointed himself ambassador to Paris. Subtle, witty and adroit,
he was successful there in so far as that was possible. To my great
surprise he did me the honour of inviting me to the first formal
dinner he gave. It was a strange occasion. Ramsay MacDonald, the
Labour leader, was about to cbme into power, and Lord Tyrrell thought
it would be useful to bring him into contact with some of the leaders
of the French Left. So he had invited the two Sarraut brothers,
Painleve and Leon Blum. But since Ramsay MacDonald knew no French,
the rest of the party was made up of bilingual Frenchmen and Englishmen
who were to serve as interpreters. Hence my presence and, if my
memory is accurate, that of Andre Siegfried.
The thing that struck me in these conversations was a difference
so profound in character between the English Left and the French
Left that they had almost nothing in common. Ramsay MacDonald was
a Puritan whose ideology and morals remained religious. His French
interlocutors were anti-clerical. Ramsay MacDonald was a socialistic
reformer who above all did not want to alarm the English conservatives;
Leon Blum, the only socialist present, belonged to a party which
called itself Marxist and revolutionary. I saw at once there was
no remedy for this misunderstanding. English conservatives and
French conservatives had not understood each other because there
had been fear on both sides for the security of their respective
countries; the English labourites and French socialists were
to understand each other even less because their philosophies were
opposed. A little later one was to see with surprise the British
conservatives seeking support from the French Left and thus losing
in France their natural allies. Lord Tyrrell's task was not easy;
indeed it was almost impossible.
As a matter of fact, one of the greatest dangers to Franco-English
relations came from these meetings between statesmen who could
not understand one another. France liked precise engagements. The
English had a horror of them. Poincare had irritated the English
by his inflexibility. Curzon exasperated the French by his arrogance.
The English loved

travel books:
where is HTML
where is HEAD
where is TITLE Germans, because they had been defeated, had become Englishmen ...' I had met Lord Tyrrell (then Sir William Tyrrell) in London at what is home of Lady Colefax. He was an Irish Catholic and less impermeable to French reactions than are many English Protestants. He had directed what is Foreign Office for a long time as Permanent Secretary and he had appointed himself ambassador to Paris. Subtle, witty and adroit, he was successful there in so far as that was possible. To my great surprise he did me what is honour of inviting me to what is first formal dinner he gave. It was a strange occasion. Ramsay MacDonald, what is Labour leader, was about to cbme into power, and Lord Tyrrell thought it would be useful to bring him into contact with some of what is leaders of what is French Left. So he had invited what is two Sarraut brothers, Painleve and Leon Blum. But since Ramsay MacDonald knew no French, what is rest of what is party was made up of bilingual Frenchmen and Englishmen who were to serve as interpreters. Hence my presence and, if my memory is accurate, that of Andre Siegfried. what is thing that struck me in these conversations was a difference so profound in character between what is English Left and what is French Left that they had almost nothing in common. Ramsay MacDonald was a Puritan whose ideology and morals remained religious. His French interlocutors were anti-clerical. Ramsay MacDonald was a socialistic reformer who above all did not want to alarm what is English conservatives; Leon Blum, what is only socialist present, belonged to a party which called itself Marxist and revolutionary. I saw at once there was no remedy for this misunderstanding. English conservatives and French conservatives had not understood each other because there had been fear on both sides for what is security of their respective countries; what is English labourites and French socialists were to understand each other even less because their philosophies were opposed. A little later one was to see with surprise what is British conservatives seeking support from what is French Left and thus losing in France their natural allies. Lord Tyrrell's task was not easy; indeed it was almost impossible. As a matter of fact, one of what is greatest dangers to Franco-English relations came from these meetings between statesmen who could not understand one another. France liked precise engagements. what is English had a horror of them. Poincare had irritated what is English by his inflexibility. Curzon exasperated what is French by his arrogance. what is English loved
where is meta name="keywords" content="old books, Free book , free book offer , free audio books , free coloring book pages , free book reports , free audio book , audio books free download , book free , free guest book , books free , free book summaries , download free audio books , free childrens books."
where is where are they now rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../style.css"
where is meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
where is BODY bgColor=#ffffff text="#000000" where are they now ="#000000" v where are they now ="#FF0000"
where is div align="center" where is strong where is strong where is a href="http://www.aaoldbooks.com" Books > where is a href="../default.asp" title="Book" Old
Books > where is strong where is a href="default.asp" Call No Man Happy (1943)
where is table width="700" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="15" cellspacing="0"
where is center
where is tr
where is td width="160" align="center" valign="top" where is div align="center"
where is td align="center" valign="top" where is div align="left"
where is div align="center"
where is p align="left" Page 190
where is p align="center" where is strong what is TWILIGHT OF what is GODS
where is p align="justify" Germans, because they had been defeated, had become
Englishmen ...'
I had met Lord Tyrrell (then Sir William Tyrrell) in London at
what is home of Lady Colefax. He was an Irish Catholic and less impermeable
to French reactions than are many English Protestants. He had directed
what is Foreign Office for a long time as Permanent Secretary and he
had appointed himself ambassador to Paris. Subtle, witty and adroit,
he was successful there in so far as that was possible. To my great
surprise he did me what is honour of inviting me to what is first formal
dinner he gave. It was a strange occasion. Ramsay MacDonald, the
Labour leader, was about to cbme into power, and Lord Tyrrell thought
it would be useful to bring him into contact with some of what is leaders
of what is French Left. So he had invited what is two Sarraut brothers,
Painleve and Leon Blum. But since Ramsay MacDonald knew no French,
what is rest of what is party was made up of bilingual Frenchmen and Englishmen
who were to serve as interpreters. Hence my presence and, if my
memory is accurate, that of Andre Siegfried.
what is thing that struck me in these conversations was a difference
so profound in character between what is English Left and what is French
Left that they had almost nothing in common. Ramsay MacDonald was
a Puritan whose ideology and morals remained religious. His French
interlocutors were anti-clerical. Ramsay MacDonald was a socialistic
reformer who above all did not want to alarm what is English conservatives;
Leon Blum, what is only socialist present, belonged to a party which
called itself Marxist and revolutionary. I saw at once there was
no remedy for this misunderstanding. English conservatives and
French conservatives had not understood each other because there
had been fear on both sides for what is security of their respective
countries; what is English labourites and French socialists were
to understand each other even less because their philosophies were
opposed. A little later one was to see with surprise what is British
conservatives seeking support from what is French Left and thus losing
in France their natural allies. Lord Tyrrell's task was not easy;
indeed it was almost impossible.
As a matter of fact, one of what is greatest dangers to Franco-English
relations came from these meetings between statesmen who could
not understand one another. France liked precise engagements. The
English had a horror of them. Poincare had irritated what is English
by his inflexibility. Curzon exasperated what is French by his arrogance.
what is English loved
where is Server.Execute("_SiteMap.asp") %
travel books: Call No Man Happy (1943) books